PUTTING THE SCREWS TO RALPH PETERS
After reading ???Man on the Move: Confronting the global migration crisis,??? why is the New York Post continuing with Ralph Peters??? column?
I say this because I don???t believe a word of what he writes.
On May 5, in what I consider to be the biggest unreported story that the entire media missed, this high-ranking McCain campaign advisor wrote an op-ed column entitled ???Saudi Stick-up??? in which he states that the reason we???re paying such exorbitant gas prices is because the Saudi royal family is ???punishing??? America because President Bush defied their ???order??? to not invade Iraq.
The problem with this thesis is that it completely contradicts Bob Woodward???s ???definitive account??? of the Bush/Saudi relationship in his Bush at War trilogy books. Woodward has it that the Bush White House and the Saudi royal family got along swimmingly and were 100 percent on the same page in their mutual quest to remove Saddam Hussein from power???with the Saudis even offering logistical and military support to get it done and later keeping the price of crude oil in check to help Bush???s re-election chances.
Does Woodward???s account sound like the Saudi royal family is mad that President Bush defied their ???order??? to not invade Iraq?
The question(s) that persists is why would a high-ranking McCain operative like Ralph Peters be advancing this bogus theory of why gas prices are so high? And why has the mainstream media completely missed this potential blockbuster story?
Until Ralph Peters is confronted with these questions and offers contradictory proof that discredits Bob Woodward???s account, I won???t believe a word out of him.
And I can???t believe anyone else would too.
- 1
- 2
Don’t Bet On the President
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
This year Dan Clifton, the Washington-based head of policy research at Strategas Research, is taking political-stock analysis to a new level by looking at the makeup of Congress. "Reps. Charlie Rangel and Barney Frank will have a say in tax bills, no matter who is elected president," he says. Clifton's Democratic Sweep portfolio, which assumes Democrats win the White House and 60 seats in the Senate, suggests buying an alternative-energy fund and shorting utilities stocks (since increasing the dividend tax, as a President Obama might do, would eat into the value of these dividend-paying stalwarts). Sam Stovall of S&P argues counter intuitively that a Democratic president would be better for oil stocks. Why? If a Republican president advocates drilling in the Arctic refuge, Congress will accuse him of helping oil-rich friends. "But if the proposal comes from a Democrat, Congress might be more likely to go along."
That's plausible. But it's just as plausible that a massive new find in Canada or a recession in China will roil the oil markets more than anything President Obama or President McCain will do.
Still not convinced of the folly of political portfolios? Consider this: in the fall of 2000, the Platonic ideal of a Bush-era stock would have been based in Texas and involved in energy distribution and trading that would benefit from deregulation in power markets, and whose CEO had a Bush-bestowed nickname, say, "Kenny Boy." And that would have been Enron.
© 2008
- 1
- 2
My Take
Each Newsweek reader is different—and now your Newsweek can be, too. Use this page to create a experience that's personalized for you and your interests. My Take: it makes Newsweek whatever you want it to be.
Discuss